Archigov · docs
  1. Docs
  2. Concepts

How It Fits Together

The five ideas Archigov is built on, and the lifecycle that connects a proposal to a decision that stays true.

#The Lifecycle of a Decision

Archigov's core value is coordinated, systematic architecture decision-making. Everything else exists to make that cycle work:

StageWhat happensWhere
ProposeAn author drafts a decision, a design, or a catalogue artefact, argues it, and tests the argument.Decisions, Governance catalogue
LinkThe proposal cites the standards, principles, patterns, policies and earlier decisions it rests on.Governance catalogue
DecideA typed review is routed to a board; decision makers record positions on the areas they own; the chair declares.Boards and reviews, Sessions
EnforceAdopted rules and decision constraints are evaluated continuously against the derived model and imported evidence.Conformance, Derived model
EvolveDrift becomes a finding; a decision is revisited, superseded with lineage, or an exception is granted with an expiry.Conformance, Decisions

Every step is recorded in a hash-chained audit log and can be exported as signed evidence.

The lifecycle of a decision — proposed, linked, decided, enforced, and revisited when the estate driftsLanes: Author, Board, Archigov. Steps: Propose (Author); Link to what it rests on (Author); Route to a board; pre-review (Archigov); Positions by area; chair declares (Board); Accepted (Board); Evaluate continuously (Archigov); Estate drifts? (Archigov); Finding cites the decision (Archigov); Revisit: supersede, or grant an exception (Board). Transitions: Propose to Link to what it rests on; Link to what it rests on to Route to a board; pre-review; Route to a board; pre-review to Positions by area; chair declares; Positions by area; chair declares to Accepted; Accepted to Evaluate continuously; Evaluate continuously to Estate drifts?; Estate drifts? to Evaluate continuously (no — keep checking); Estate drifts? to Finding cites the decision (yes); Finding cites the decision to Revisit: supersede, or grant an exception; Revisit: supersede, or grant an exception to Propose (a new decision supersedes).AuthorBoardArchigovProposeargue in three partsLink to what it restsonstandards, policies,earlier decisionsRoute to a board;pre-reviewPositions by area;chair declaresAcceptedEvaluate continuouslyevery sync and hourlyEstate drifts?Finding cites thedecisionRevisit: supersede, orgrant an exceptionno — keep checkingyesa new decision supersedes
The lifecycle of a decision — proposed, linked, decided, enforced, and revisited when the estate drifts

#Five Ideas

#The Architecture Model Is Derived, Not Authored

The as-is model comes from sources: Azure Resource Graph, CSV and ArchiMate imports, and the Azure DevOps backlog as a feed of planned change. Humans spend their effort on decisions, standards and reviews, not on drawing boxes. This is why an empty instance is useful within minutes, and why a decision's constraints can be checked at all.

#Governance Artefacts Are Machine-checkable Policy

One catalogue holds four kinds of artefact — standards, principles, patterns and policies. Each is a human statement, control references, and optionally a JSON rule. Every adopted artefact with a rule is evaluated by the same engine, so a finding can cite a pattern or a policy just as it cites a standard.

#Boards Decide; The Workflow Is Explicit

Reviews are typed and routed to boards. A board has seats, routing rules, and an approval policy per review type. Decision makers record their own positions; the chair moderates and declares; the secretary runs the sittings. Nobody acts on anyone else's behalf, and the platform administrator — who runs the instance — has no governance rights at all.

#Evidence, Not Assurance

Archigov never claims you are compliant. It shows evidence and who stands behind it. Resource-level checks are imported from Microsoft Defender for Cloud and Azure Policy rather than rebuilt; a rule that needs a configuration fact asserts on that imported evidence, and missing evidence is a finding, never a pass.

#Verification State Is First-class

Every element, relation, decision, standard and AI output carries an origin — derived, inferred, human, ai or rules — and a verification state with who verified it and when. When the underlying content changes, verification drops back to unverified automatically. AI output is always unverified and never approves anything.

#Who Does What

PersonTypical seat or roleTheir part
Solution architect, engineerAuthorProposes decisions, designs and artefacts; provides assessments; owns conditions
Domain lead (security, data…)Decision maker on a board, owning areasRecords positions on the areas they own; may delegate their seat for a session
Chief architect, board chairChairModerates, resolves conditionals, declares outcomes, runs the sitting
Governance officeSecretaryPlans sessions, records attendance, keeps the notes, manages members and routing
Specialist adviserReviewerComments and pre-reviews; can send an item back; never approves
Risk, audit, regulatorAuditorReads everything and exports evidence; changes nothing
Platform teamPlatform adminSources, settings, users, backups — and nothing in a review

See Roles and capabilities for the exact rights.

#What Archigov Deliberately Does Not Do

  • It is not a diagramming or free-form modelling tool. Importers are sources with provenance, not editors, and the generated views cover the physical and technology layer only, because only that layer derives deterministically.
  • It is not a work tracker. The backlog is a feed that surfaces decisions that are missing or have been invalidated.
  • It does not rebuild cloud security posture checks. It imports them as evidence.
  • It does not assert compliance, and AI never decides.